Appeal 2007-0961
Application 10/264,131
disclosed or suggested by Sandbank. Sandbank describes image intensifying
screens, which amplify the light incident on the screen (e.g., 1:45-58; 2:3-
17). Brightness or hue of the display results from, for example, the relative
intensity of light received by a particular phototransistor 9 associated with a
particular red, green, or blue (RGB) cell (Figs. 2-4). Phototransistor 9 is
rendered conductive in proportion to the incident radiation, allowing an
appropriate current to pass through an electroluminescent emitter 8.
Sandbank 2:18-27.
We thus agree with Appellants that the rejection fails to establish a
prima facie case for obviousness of the claimed subject matter.
Claims 15-19 -- § 103(a) rejections
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sandbank, Lys, and Takahashi or over Daniel,
Lys, and Takahashi, nor the rejection of claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Daniel, Lys, Takahashi, and Linford. The
claims incorporate the limitations of at least base claim 14. As we have
indicated in our review of the rejection of claim 14, however, neither Daniel
nor Sandbank has been shown to describe all the requirements of at least the
“control means” that the rejections attribute to the base references.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we have sustained the rejection of claims 9 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Daniel and the rejection of claims
10, 12, 13, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Daniel,
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013